The Sundance Film Festival is one of the largest independent fests in the country, but it probably has the best reputation for launching filmmaking careers and being the only thing in January that will be remembered around Oscar time 13 months later. It’s debatable just how “indie” it is — especially with studio shingles routinely picking up audience favorites for distribution — but it’s difficult to deny the raw directorial power that’s moved through Park City over the years. Names like Christopher Nolan, Kevin Smith, The Coen Brothers and Steven Soderbergh can count themselves amongst the Sundance ranks, but there are many, many more. In that (independent) spirit, here’s a double-size list of tips (for fans and filmmakers alike) from 12 directors who made a name at Sundance.

Looming large over the landscape, the ark that Noah (Russell Crowe) and his family will use to save themselves (and by proxy, humanity) was made of an old material called “wood” instead of the preferred material called “pixels.” Darren Aronofsky‘s decision to go big for the floating home is something to celebrate even if it exhausted those in charge of production, set, art and the local logging industry. The movie will no doubt involve some CGI, but this Herculean undertaking proves an odd kind of old school dedication to delivering something breathtaking in-camera. Plus, if you open the lid, your face melts off. The epic Noah is set for theaters March 28, 2014, so we have a ways to go before we see this beauty in all its sea-worthy glory, but even in still form, it inspires a bit of awe and the believability that it can hold two of every animal except unicorns. Hyperbolic internet writers, it’s okay to use the phrase “awesome” in this instance. [Vulture]

Everyone knows how much the movie-making world relies on trends. If one studio has a superhero movie that hits, suddenly everyone has to have their own superhero movie. If one movie featuring a bow and arrow toting protagonist scores big at the box office, suddenly a flood of Hollywood’s top names find themselves having to take archery lessons. Savvy producers are the ones who are always on the lookout for what the next big trend is going to be. So, now that we’ve gotten through a whole summer of William Tell wannabes, what’s the next big trend that’s going to hit theaters? If Darren Aronofsky or Will Smith are able to bring in the bucks with either of their brewing projects, it might be adaptations of bible stories. The first bit of biblical news floating around today comes from a Tweet sent out directly by Aronofsky himself (via Vulture). Yesterday the Black Swan director took to his Twitter account and sent the following message out to his followers, “I dreamt about this since I was 13. And now it’s a reality. Genesis 6:14 #noah.” Of course, seeing as he’s currently at work making a Russell Crowe-starring adaptation of the story of Noah, it doesn’t take much detective work to figure out that the image of a gigantic wooden structure in mid-construction accompanying his words must be the Ark that’s being built for the film. Yeah, that’s right, CG be damned – Aronofsky is going practical with his giant wooden boat.

While it’s seeming more and more possible that Darren Aronofsky won’t make the wish of flood enthusiasts everywhere come true by casting someone to play a giant wave or two (or three, or four…) in his Noah, he’s making up for that hideous oversight with a stellar cast that so far includes Russell Crowe, Saoirse Ronan, Douglas Booth, Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, Ray Winstone, and (probably) Jennifer Connolly - a litany of talents that he’s just rounded out with no less than Sir Anthony Hopkins. Aronofsky himself announced the news this morning via his Twitter, in a tweet that reads: “i’m honored to be working with the great sir anthony hopkins. we just added him to the stellar cast of ‪#Noah‬. ‪#methuselahlives‬” Methuselah lives! Hurray! Wait, who is Methuselah again?

With casting news for Darren Aronofsky‘s Noah slowly trickling out like a leaky faucet, we’ve long joked about the continued rumors that Russell Crowe’s Noah was going to be getting a nemesis that wasn’t just the giant, world-destroying flood that history has taught us is his main nemesis. Proving that a flood of Biblical proportions just isn’t enough to even possibly sink Crowe, Deadline Aspen reports that Ray Winstone has been offered the role of Noah’s human villain. Little is known about the part beyond the basic description that he will somehow come up against Crowe, and that Aronofsky was gunning for actors who possess “grit and size” for the role. He was also reportedly looking at Val Kilmer, which might signal that the filmmaker was also looking for that indefinable batshit lunacy that Kilmer can pull off so well. Winstone does certainly have grit and size on his side, coupled with raw talent and what some people like to refer to as gravitas. He was last seen in Snow White and the Huntsman, but for pure Winstone-ness, look no further than something like the gloriously unhinged 44 Inch Chest (or The Departed, The Proposition, or Edge of Darkness – the dude is a badass everywhere).

Darren Aronofsky‘s epic Noah continues to fill out, with Deadline Woodland Hills now reporting that Emma Watson is in talks to come on board the project as the love interest, Ila, of one of Noah’s (Russell Crowe) sons. The outlet reports that Ila will develop “a close relationship” with Douglas Booth‘s character, Shem. There’s a bit of confusion here, as Deadline’s post about the casting (which we reported earlier this week) indicated that Logan Lerman‘s Ham would be the one receiving a love interest, and this news says that it will in fact be Booth who will get the girl. Weirdly enough, this might not be a case of Deadline screwing up which son is which – different versions of the Noah story actually mix up the order of the sons (there’s even another one, Japheth), and that could certainly be a part of the problem. And that’s about as far as my lapsed Catholicism can take me on this one. The film is still in need of both a wife and a nemesis for Noah.

Science fiction has long been considered by some experts to be a lesser genre than traditional dramas and character studies. Because it lends itself so easily to exploitation, science fiction isn’t always given the respect it deserves. Sure, it tends to be a box office winner, as evidenced by the fact that more than half of the all-time domestic grossing films fit easily in that genre (with at least two more – Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest and Shrek 2 – marginally related as genre films). Still, some still consider science fiction something not to be taken seriously. It is for this reason that “legitimate” film directors might shy away from science fiction in lieu of more important or significant projects. However, many directors got their start or their earliest fame from working in science fiction and other allegedly exploitative and pulp genres. This week’s release of Prometheus reminds us that even though Ridley Scott has directed historical epics (Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven), military action films (Black Hawk Down), crime thrillers (American Gangster) and straight dramas (Thelma & Louise), he got his start in science fiction with Alien and Blade Runner. Scott isn’t the only director to begin a successful career in science fiction. Here are seven other directors who started out or received some of their earliest success in this genre.

Darren Aronofsky‘s Biblical epic Noah has been through enough chatter over the years to sink even the heartiest of souls, so it’s high time the filmmaker buckled down and began casting the rest of the film’s roles beyond just Russell Crowe as Noah. Just in the interest of getting this ship on the water and all. Deadline Las Vegas reports that Logan Lerman and Douglas Booth are now on board to play Noah’s sons. Lerman will be the oldest, Ham, with Booth taking on the younger role of Shem. This means we’re still in need of some feminine wiles – the boys need a mom and Noah needs a wife (Jennifer Connelly continues to be the name that comes up most often when it comes to this particular role), and Ham apparently gets a love interest (supposedly a “great role” for an up-and-coming young actress). The outlet also reports that, despite earlier chatter, Liam Neeson will not be playing Noah’s “nemesis” in the film. I never really pictured him as raging floodwaters either. That role is also still up for grabs.

As we all know, George Washington tried desperately to become a professional wrestler and world-class ballet dancer, so it makes sense that the General-turned-President would be the focus of a future Darren Aronofsky project. The director has attached himself to The General – a biopic with a script from Adam Cooper and Bill Collage (Tower Heist, Accepted). According to Variety, the director is shopping the project to Paramount (as contractually obligated) but if they pass, he’ll be taking it around town. Then, after they see the town, they’ll start taking meetings with studio executives. Why they’re stealing the name from a brilliant Buster Keaton Civil War adventure is unclear. However, it sounds like a solid enough idea. Cooper and Collage must be showing off a different side for Aronofsky to get on board like this, but it’s high time that we get a dirty-handed version of Washington. After all, if Abraham Lincoln can hunt vampires and FDR can be an American Badass, why not make Washington an unironic hero with blood on his hands? If you’re unfamiliar with our first President, learn about him here:

There have been reports about director Darren Aronofsky trying to get a movie about the biblical tale of Noah off the ground for a while now. At one point he even had Christian Bale interested in taking on the title role of the boat building messenger of God, but his schedule didn’t allow for that to ever happen. The movie itself looks like it’s ready to get off the ground though, only instead of Batman as Noah, Aronofsky is going to have to settle for a gladiator. Deadline Daberath reports that the deals are done, and this movie is ready to set sail with Russell Crowe as its star. This will be the first film Aronofsky has directed since his seriously well received movie about killer ballerinas (or at least that’s what Billy Crystal told me), Black Swan. When talking about his interest in this project, Aronofsky said, ”Since I was a kid, I have been moved and inspired by the story of Noah and his family’s journey. The imaginations of countless generations have sparked to this epic story of faith. It’s my hope that I can present a window into Noah’s passion and perseverance for the silver screen.” Reportedly, Aronofsky sees this as epic in scope and wants to spend somewhere around $130m on it. It’s going to be the first project stemming from Arnon Milchan’s new vision for New Regency, which entails a return to making edgy movies like L.A. Confidential, Heat, and Fight Club. That all sounds

Before he taught Mickey Rourke how to wrestle or Natalie Portman how to Adagio, Darren Aronofsky was showing Jared Leto how to shoot up. Requiem For a Dream was the director’s second feature film – Pi came out in 1998 – and his position as an auteur began to grow from there. Some consider Requiem Aronofsky’s best film. Regardless if you find it engaging or grotesque, there’s no denying the man’s direction on the film is something to be appreciated. Even studied. So let’s take a few minutes and hear what Aronofsky had to say about Requiem For a Dream. There’s bound to be wonderful anecdotes about the director skipping with Marlon Wayans down the Coney Island boardwalk or buying ice cream in the Central Park with Jennifer Connelly. Surely this commentary can’t include anything too serious. The movie has a giant refrigerator that dances and sings. It may be gnashing and screaming, but it’s all how you look at it, right? Anyway, let’s get into it. The uppers are about to kick in, anyway.

It’s hard to get excited about something as technical as that thing that makes cameras not fall down on film sets, especially these days, when you can make a successful film without even going through the effort of picking up a camera at all. Even if you are shooting a live action film, thanks to the realism of CGI, computers are now able to put a lens wherever you need it to be – this is why I think we need to take a second to celebrate some of the hard working pieces of lightweight metal that were behind a few of the more bitchin’ shots out there. These rigs got the shot done, computers be damned!

Ever since Brazilian director Jose Padilha was confirmed to direct MGM’s long-gestating Robocop reboot, there has been the lingering question as to what would happen to all of the work the original director, Darren Aronofsky, put into the project. Aronofsky was all set to take on Robocop, and had even written a script, but some looming bankruptcy problems with MGM and an otherwise full schedule for Aronofsky put the kibosh on all of that. Well, Crave recently sat down with Padilha to talk about his upcoming Elite Squad 2, and eventually steered the conversation toward the subject of Robocop. When asked about the Aronofsky script, Padilha said, “I haven’t read Aronofsky’s script. Aronofsky is a great director. I love his films. I am very proud because I saw Pi in the opening Sundance screening and I loved it. So Aronofsky’s great. I have my own take on Robocop. I know what his take was and it’s totally different. It’s a different thing, different kind of film, even different period in time so I haven’t read his previous work.” On one hand, that’s kind of disappointing, I would have loved to have seen what a major director like Aronofsky envisioned for this project. On the other hand, I’m much happier about a filmmaker who is enthusiastic about his own vision taking over Robocop rather than having a utility player come in, just pick up the pieces, and do whatever the studio wants.

News of a RoboCop remake has been bouncing around for literally years, usually with Darren Aronofsky’s name attached in some manner. Recently, the plan for the film has been that Aronofsky would serve in a producer’s role and José Padilha, helmer of 2007’s Elite Squad, would be sitting in the director’s chair. Even more recently, Dutch film site Film1 caught up with the director to have a chat about Elite Squad 2, and at the end even managed to get a quote out of him about how his approach to the material will differ from original RoboCop director Paul Verhoeven’s. Padilha’s comments were posted in some sort of indecipherable moon language, but luckily the gents over at /Film were kind enough to run it through Google translate and have some good old-fashioned English come out the other end. Padilha roughly said, “I love the sharpness and political tone of RoboCop, and I think that such a film is now urgently needed. But I will not repeat what Verhoeven has done so clearly and strongly. Instead I try to make a film that will address topics that Verhoeven untreated. If you are a man changes into a robot, how do you do that? What is the difference between humans and robots developed? What is free will? What does it mean to lose your free will? Those are the issues that I think.” That’s kind of vague, but I guess what Padilha is getting at is that his version of RoboCop will focus

We often don’t think of commercials as having authorship, at least not in the same way we think of movies. Commercials are created by advertising companies, by focus groups, by strategists; not by “artists.” But while the purpose of a 30-second ad may on the surface differ from the motive of a feature length film (though not always), both are media assembled through a particular economy of storytelling devices and are made often by a collaborative company of individuals. But commercials don’t often contain credit sequences, and thus the phenomenology of its making is cloaked and the personalities who made it unconsidered. The focus is on the product being sold, not the creative team selling it. So it can be surprising to find out that well-respected, top-tier, artistic filmmakers often direct commercials. Sure, many filmmakers regularly make commercials as a more lucrative and less time-consuming alternative to feature filmmaking, and there are many visual artists who have honed an ability to express their personality in various media forms, but a surprising number of supposedly cinema-specific auteurs make commercials, despite a lack of apparent monetary need or professional benefit. This subject came to my attention recently because of a series of articles on Slate last week by David Haglund about the oeuvre of the Coen brothers that included the filmmaking duo’s commercials in considering their larger cinematic contribution. It’s an interesting way to view a filmmaker’s career, for it forces you to look for their identifying traits and revisited themes via

What is Movie News After Dark? It’s a nightly movie news and commentary column that is a little disoriented at the moment. But don’t worry, it will find its way. Oh, there’s a few Michael Bay-related stories to talk about. That’s so much better… With the release of Transformers: Dark of the Moon happening this evening at 9pm or midnight or whatever, there’s been a lot of talk about Michael Bay, the most divisive man in cinema (at the moment). Today brought several must-reads, including GQ’s Oral history of Michael Bay exposé, which chronicles the life and times of the man who demands it all to be awesome. I also enjoyed this defense of Michael Bay piece by Jacob Hall at Movies.com. It’s a delightful look at the internal struggle movie-lovers face when confronted with pure, unfiltered awesome.

Not too long ago Fox’s supposed filmmaker wish list for “The Wolverine” was leaked. For the most part, it was filled with fairly safe choices. To no great surprise, the studio has decided to go with one of those many easy picks: director James Mangold. While the director hasn’t signed on yet, an offer has gone out and Deadline Fukushima makes it sound like a sure deal. The idea of going from a guy like Darren Aronfosky to Mangold is disheartening and disappointing, but worse switches could happen. He’s a perfectly competent journeyman filmmaker. Walk the Line, Cop Land, Identity, and 3:10 to Yuma are all solid films, and even Knight and Day ain’t too bad. We probably won’t be getting a Wolverine film as ambitious as what Aronofsky would’ve done with the material, but I’d much rather see the director of 3:10 to Yuma than Tokyo Drift take on the Japan storyline. The Wolverine is expected to shoot this fall with the use of Christopher McQuarrie‘s (The Usual Suspects) draft.

Sad news today for Jiroemon Kimura, the oldest man in the world. Despite being the closest qualified to play the 600-year-old Noah (of Ark), the supercentenarian will not see his dream of acting for Darren Aronofsky come true. According to Vulture, that honor very well may go to the much, much younger Christian Bale. Fortunately, Aronofsky is in talks with one of the few actors working today that could actually find a way to become 600 years old. No doubt it would involve losing 40 pounds, growing a formidable white beard, and giving himself diabetes. Of course this addition would help out on the business side of things (if you care about that), but more importantly, it would combine a hell of an actor with a hall of a director. Two men willing to take chances, working on a Biblical epic where the last antediluvian patriarch, with a direct line to God, builds a giant vessel and marches two of every animal on board. Who says creativity is dead? Here’s hoping that Bale takes the role. He was looking too healthy and normal anyway.

Ever since acclaimed director Darren Aronofsky unceremoniously dumped The Wolverine as his next project, scholarly people all over the planet have been asking themselves what he would end up doing instead. Suddenly, that situation is a little less unclear, as Deadline Daberath reports the director is close to getting his long gestating project Noah off and running. Several years ago, when talking about possible future projects, Aronofsky described Noah to /Film by saying, “I think it’s really timely because it’s about environmental apocalypse which is the biggest theme, for me, right now for what’s going on on this planet. So I think it’s got these big, big themes that connect with us. Noah was the first environmentalist. He’s a really interesting character. Hopefully they’ll let me make it.” Back then he hadn’t made a bunch of money and acquired a bunch of high profile awards from making Black Swan, so the chances of the studios letting him make a biblical epic didn’t seem quite so plausible. But today, in a post Black Swan world, Aronofsky’s vision suddenly seems a lot more likely to happen. Apparently the filmmaker is looking for $130 million to get the film made, and New Regency is already trying to set themselves up as co-financers of the project. In order to make this proposal a reality, Aronofsky is going to have to find another studio to pick up the rest of New Regency’s financial slack; but that might not be so much of a problem as

Baddass Digest is reporting that both The Mouse and Warners are trying to get Darren Aronofsky on board for big budget projects. For Disney, it’s Maleficent – the new take on Sleeping Beauty that sees Angelina Jolie wearing the horned black cloak. For Warners, it’s Moses – an epic about a Jewish slave in Egypt singing “Let My People….Go.” On the one hand, Aronfosky could be spinning his own fairy tale. On the other, he could be re-imagining a Biblical history. Either way, none of this is a done deal because the studios are undoubtedly talking with other directors (like David Yates for Maleficent), and it’s not like Aronofsky has to choose simply between these two pictures. Thus, the real question becomes: which would you rather see him do? The Moses, The Witch or the None of the Above?